Central Information Commission
Mrk Sridhar vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 1 April, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ROOM NO. 329, SECOND FLOOR, C-WING
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
Tel. No. 91-11-26717356
F.No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000108-YA
Date of hearing : 01.04.2014
Date of decision : 01.04.2014
Appellant : Shri K. Sridhar,
Chennai (T.N.)
Respondent : Shri Omveer Singh, SSP
Office of the Supdt. of Police
(Rural), U.T. Puducherry
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant fact emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.08.2012
PIO Replied on : 13.09.2012
First appeal filed on : 04.10.2012
First Appellate Authority order : 09.11.2012
Second Appeal received on : 30.11.2012
Information sought:
The appellant had sought copy of a statement filed by the opposite party whom he had complained against to the Police.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant is present. During the hearing, he stated that he had filed a police complaint against two individuals in connection with a property situated within the jurisdiction of Kirumambakkam Police Station. The complaint was registered as a non-cognizable offence and no FIR was registered. He wanted copies of the statements filed by the opposite party to see as to how the complaint was not registered as FIR. SP, Law and Order, Puducherry stated that the appellant's complaint was examined and found to be of a civil nature. The matter was referred to the Law Department which concurred with the view of the police. Subsequently, even when the matter was taken by the appellant to the High Court, the Hon'ble Court also concurred with the view that the matter was of a civil nature. The CPIO in his reply stated that since the information was related to thirty party who, also, had refused parting with the information and thus, copies of the statements were not provided. A copy of the Non-Cognizable Report registered by the Police under Section 155 Cr.PC was provided to the appellant.
Decision:
After hearing both the parties, the Commission upholds the view of the respondent in denying information to the appellant on the basis of it being third party information. Besides the appellant has not been able to establish any public interest in seeking this information which mainly serves his own personal cause.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.V.Mathew) Deputy Registrar